I always like to read news about Ahmadinejad. Today he talks about the unlikelihood of a US attack on Iran & says any attack would be effectively
countered by the Iranian military should it come to that.

I don't share his confidence with preventing or successfully defending an attack, but maybe his military have a few tricks up their sleeve.

The problem with this statement is not that they have no excuse, they just don't have a good enough one yet. That does not change the fact that one
is being gradually fabricated. Maybe something will happen 5 years from now. Hopefully not though.

Just seems every day there is some garbage from at least one side of the dispute.

Actually,the US had every right to attack Iran back in 1979 when our embassy was attacked and taken over. Carter was/is too much of a pussy to do
anything about it as his demoncratic views of America is everyone needs a hug and we are always wrong. This is also the current demoncratic view in
the White House.

There is no current reason to turn Iran into a glowing pile of sand. I think the citizens will overthrow their government in the next few years if
more moderates aren't elected.

The US doesn't have a current reason to attack Iran... But then again we didn't have a reason to attack Iraq either... So, we made one up. The US
has capabilities far beyond what we all know and what the media portrays no doubt, but I think any open military action against Iran will not happen,
I think the people of the country will be able to right their governments wrongs within the next ten years. Those people are chomping at the bit to
join the western culture.

Originally posted by hinky
Actually,the US had every right to attack Iran back in 1979 when our embassy was attacked and taken over.

So by that virtue when the CIA launched Operation Ajax then the Iranians had every right to attack the US regardless of whether they would achieve
anything but on principal alone. If we are going to bring some history in I think its prudent to provide a somewhat bigger picture.

They would have the backing of Israel and maybe Britain but I don't think the rest of NATO would join in. If they had credible intel on Irans
nuclear weapons program it would have first been plastered all over the news and then the strikes would have happened. The fact that Busher went
online shows that they have nothing.

Iran has every right to develop Nuclear Energy under the NPT which they signed. Israel has an illegal weapons program according to the provisions of
the NPT.

Iran isn't Iraq or Afghanistan. Their military isn't depleted like the US military and the Patriot Block 3 missiles aren't as effective as
everyone is led to believe. They only intercept about 1 in 4 targets so if you have to fire 4 patriots to hit one Iranian missile then the batteries
would be caught reloading while the hundreds of other missiles rain down on Israel and any others they wish to target.

Most people only go by the "history" they want to know about, or have been spoon-fed, rather than the more colorful and complex history that defies
the propaganda they subscribe to. You can give some people the history of PR/ propaganda, how it's been implemented in culture after culture, in
politics and commercial enterprise, then show them the documents from their own government that verifies it's use on them, the detailed history of
events like our shameful history in Iran, and they will still hate Iran and want to see them bombed. That's how effective good propaganda is, and
that's how weak minded "the masses" are.

if we dont have one , we can always make one.
cheney may still have a nuke around from the barksdale caper.
we can concoct anything..they're axis of evil aint they?
we'd be doing them a favor..the war would pay for it self-
like iraq and afghanistan. make check out to the petro-chemical-
military..exxon, royal dutch shell, the usual suspects.
FREEDOM IS ON THE MARCH!
we have a special on one size fits all puppet govt.
just like the one in the usa.

I don't think they would get any NATO or UN backing for such a war, especially in view of the fact that all the experts say Iran has no nukes.

They are in a similar position as that of pre-Iraq invasion. They are exaggerating the case of Iran's WMD, but morally they don't have a leg to
stand on really. US wouldn't attack Iran on its own, without Israel and vice versa. But Iran is a member of the NPT, and Israel is the maverick
country who has allegedly more than 200 nuclear WMD, but won't declare them. UN has been pushing for Israel to join the NPT and declare its nukes
recently, but Israel, surprise, surprise, has refused.

Britain might join in an attack on Iran, but may also be influenced by UN, European allies and public opinion not to do so. If UK goes to war with
Iran, Cameron will likely suffer the same fate as Blair, which he is probably aware of.

So - America/Israel could find themselves in a very difficult position if they were to attack.

The governments of these two countries seem to tbrive on murder and bloodshed, but would put themselves seriously at risk if by going it alone.

I pray that they never get the support they need to go ahead, so their Vulture Capitalism will just have to contain itself for now, thank God.

For sure, this time, America will be hit in return if it attacks Iran. I do not believe it will be able to attack and remain unscathed at home in
such a case, unlike Afghanistan and Iraq. This too might be a deterrent from its usual bullyi boy approach - not because the Gov cares a fig for the
American people, but because the Gov might not survive a war in which the Americans at home also get bombed.

He definitely has the power to put 20% of the worlds oil on hold briefly, and for us to engage Iran with a limited amount of oil wouldn't be pretty
wise. After 5 days of rationed oil, the American public will demand the withdrawal of US troops, saying 'Not another Iraq!', and 'No WMD's here!'
(that is, if there was no such thing as a corrupt government and false flags...).

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.